[openib-general] RE: [dat-discussions] socket based connection model for IB proposal - round 3

[Kanevsky, Arkady]

Sean,
comments inline.
Arkady

Arkady Kanevsky                       email: arkady at netapp.com
Network Appliance Inc.               phone: 781-768-5395
275 Totten Pond Rd.                  Fax: 781-895-1195
Waltham, MA 02451-2010          central phone: 781-768-5300
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean Hefty [mailto:mshefty at ichips.intel.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 6:01 PM
> To: Kanevsky, Arkady
> Cc: dat-discussions at yahoogroups.com; 
> openib-general at openib.org; swg at infinibandta.org
> Subject: Re: [openib-general] RE: [dat-discussions] socket 
> based connection model for IB proposal - round 3
> 
> If you want to maximize consumer usable private data, then 
> you can move the version, IP version, protocol, source and 
> destination ports into the service ID.

Not at the expense of redefining what Service ID is.
How do you propose to move all these fields into Service ID without
violating IBTA spec Annex A3.2.? Remember Service ID is what responder
advertize and requestor sends communucation requests to. It may be
possible
to server to advertize multiple service IDs to cover version and IP
version
variations but it will not be symmetrical to iWARP. Port is port
(service ID)
and address is address. Port does not encode IP version. 

> 
> Separately, if there's any defined mapping to a service ID or 
> set of service IDs, then the service ID indicates the format 
> of the private data.  No additional information is needed in 
> the CM REQ, such as using a reserve bit.

That is a good point.
But this restricts the usage of IP addressing only to these ports.
The question is what is easier to check 1 bit or Service ID.
Of course, service ID will have to be checked anyhow to direct the
request.
While this overloads the semantic meaning of Service ID it is a viable
method.

> 
> To be clear, the CM REQ _carries_ the IP address.  There 
> should be no requirement that the CM performs the mapping, 
> and I see no reason why it should even care.
> 

Can you elaborate on this? Is this addresses who populates the formated
portion of
the provate data?

> - Sean
>